Instruct Contributions of Study Skills Gettinger 2002

7/29/2019 Instruct Contributions of Study Skills Gettinger 2002

1/16

350

School Psychology Review,2002, Volume 31, No.3, pp. 350-365

Address correspondence concerning this article to Maribeth Gettinger, Department of Educational Psy-chology, 1025 West Johnson St., University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706. Email:[email protected].

Copyright 2002 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015

Contributions of Study Skills to Academic Competence

Maribeth Gettinger University of Wisconsin-Madison

Jill K. Seibert University of South Carolina

Abstract. Study skills are fundamental to academic competence. Effective studyskills are associated with positive outcomes across multiple academic content ar-eas and for diverse learners. The purpose of this article is to describe an informa-

tion-processing perspective on the contribution of study skills to academic compe-tence, and to identify evidence-based strategies that are effective in helping stu-dents to improve their study skills. Using an information-processing framework,study skills are grouped into four clusters: repetition-based skills, procedural studyskills, cognitive-based study skills, and metacognitive skills. Key elements of ef-fective study-strategy training are delineated.

critical tools for learning. Study skills encom-pass a range of coordinated cognitive skills andprocesses that enhance the effectiveness and

efficiency of students learning (Devine, 1987).According to Hoover and Patton (1995), studyskills include the competencies associated withacquiring, recording, organizing, synthesizing,remembering, and using information. Thesecompetencies contribute to success in bothnonacademic (e.g., employment) and academicsettings. Studying, or the application of studyskills, can be distinguished from other formsof school learning that occur under more pro-scribed conditions, such as teacher-led class-room instruction (Novak & Gowin, 1984;Rohwer, 1984). First, studying is skillful; itrequires training and practice with specifictechniques that help a learner acquire, orga-nize, retain, and use information. Although stu-dents are expected to apply study skills in com-pleting homework or preparing for tests, teach-ers typically devote little time to providingexplicit instruction in such skills (Zimmerman,

Academic competence is associated withthe knowledge and application of effectivestudy skills. Capable students at all grade lev-

els may experience difficulty in school, notbecause they lack ability, but because they lackgood study skills. Although some students de-velop study skills independently, even nor-mally achieving students may go throughschool without having acquired effective ap-proaches for studying (Nicaise & Gettinger,1995). Implementing study-skills instructionrelies on an understanding of the theoreticalfoundation for teaching and using study skills,as well as knowledge of current research onthe effectiveness of study strategies. The pur-pose of this article is to articulate a theoreticalperspective on the contribution of study skillsto academic competence, and to identify evi-dence-based strategies that are effective inhelping students study.

Consistent with the model of academiccompetence for this miniseries, study skills areviewed as academic enablers; they function as


2/16

351

Study Skills

1998). Second, studying is intentional. Effec-tive studying requires not only the knowledgeand application of skills, but volition as well.Studying differs from incidental learning in that

it is purposeful and requires a deliberate andconscious effort on the part of the student. Third,studying is highly personal and individualized.Whereas classroom learning occurs within a so-cial context through interaction and guidancefrom others (e.g., peers, teachers), studying isoften an individual activity. Even when learningis fostered through a process of social commu-nication, individual study behaviors still play acritical role in academic competence (Damon,1991; Kucan & Beck, 1997). Finally, studyinginvolves a self-regulatory dimension. Accord-ing to Rohwer (1984), studying is the princi-pal means of self-education throughout life(p. 1). Self-regulation (e.g., initiative, persis-tence, goal setting) is an important aspect of studying, not only during the initial develop-ment of study skills, but also during applica-tion of skills outside of formal learning con-texts (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996).

A useful distinction has emerged in re-

cent years to differentiate between a study tac-tic and study strategy (Lenz, Ellis, & Scanlon,1996). A study tactic is a sequence of steps ora specific procedure, such as underlining orsummarizing. A study tactic may be taughtthrough explicit instruction wherein the skillis operationalized and presented as a sequenceof observable, isolated behaviors. It is oftenassumed that good studying is synonymouswith using study tactics correctly. Routine orrote application of a study tactic, however, doesnot ensure effective studying. Merely imple-menting a sequence of behaviors does not nec-essarily encourage students to plan, thinkabout, or monitor their studying (Paris &Winograd, 1990). The application and effec-tiveness of a tactic may be improved throughthe use of a study strategy. A strategy is anindividuals comprehensive approach to a task;it includes how a person thinks and acts whenplanning and evaluating his or her study be-

havior. A strategy consists of guidelines andrules related to selecting the best tactics andmaking decisions about their use. The goal of study-strategy instruction is to teach a strat-

egy in a manner that is both effective (the strat-egy is learned) and efficient (it is learned to anoptimal level with minimal effort). Althougha strategy requires knowledge of study tactics,

the primary focus in strategy instruction isknowing how to study, making decisions aboutthe use of study tactics, and taking responsi-bility for ones own learning. In effect, goodstudiers are good strategy users; they knowhow to use a variety of goal-specific tactics, toexecute them in a planned sequence, and tomonitor their use. In sum, study skills encom-pass a variety of tactics that are used flexiblyand purposefully by students, depending on thelearning situation. For purposes of the follow-ing discussion, the terms study skills and studystrategies are used interchangeably.

Study Skills and AcademicCompetence

Characteristics of Effective VersusIneffective Studiers

Several researchers have documentedweak study skills among students who experi-

ence learning problems (Henley, Ramsey, &Algozzine, 1996; Hoover & Patton, 1995; Lenzet al., 1996; Strichart, Mangrum, & Iannuzzi,1998; Waldron & McLeskey, 2000). Accord-ing to Gersten (1998), many students with aca-demic difficulties are not aware of tricks of thetrade that are used by academically competentstudents when they study. A primary source of evidence concerning reading-related study strat-egies comes from an analysis of the verbal re-ports produced by individuals who express theirthoughts while engaged in a learning activity,often referred to as thinking aloud (Kucan &Beck, 1997). Think-aloud methods have allowedresearchers to explore the type of cognitive pro-cessing involved in studying, beyond a narrowfocus on observable behaviors (Afflerbach &Johnston, 1984; Ericsson & Simon, 1993;Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Wyatt et al., 1993).As a method of inquiry, think-aloud protocolsreveal much about the strategies that skilled

students use to understand and retain text in-formation, and that unskilled students need tolearn in order to be more successful (Brown &Day, 1983; Collins, Brown, & Larkin, 1980).


3/16

352

School Psychology Review, 2002, Volume 31, No. 3

Based on a review and detailed analysisof more than 40 verbal protocol studies,Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) compiled acomprehensive list of strategies and cognitive

processes that individuals execute in order tounderstand and facilitate retention of informa-tion. Pressley and Afflerbach identified sev-eral key study strategies that were evident inthe majority of verbal protocols they reviewed.These included: (a) overview before reading;(b) look for important information and paygreater attention to it (which often requires

jumping forward or backward to process in-formation); (c) relate important points to oneanother; (d) activate and use prior knowledge;(e) change strategies when understanding is notgood; and (f) monitor understanding and takeaction to correct or fix up inaccuracies incomprehension.

Conversely, students with low academicachievement often demonstrate ineffectivestudy skills. They tend to assume a passive rolein learning and rely on others (e.g., teachers,parents) to regulate their studying. Severalcognitive and behavioral characteristics reflect

this passivity in learning. For example, low-achieving students often do not monitor theirunderstanding of content; they may not beaware of the purpose of studying; and theyshow little evidence of looking back, or em-ploying fix-up strategies to remedy compre-hension problems. Students who struggle withlearning new information seem to be unawarethat they must extend effort beyond simplyreading the content to understand and retain it.Children with mild disabilities, such as learn-ing disabilities (LD), do not exhibit an execu-tive level of thinking in which they plan andevaluate their studying (Wong, 1994). Theirstudying may be haphazard and disorganized.An assessment of students with academic prob-lems, based on teacher and parent ratings andself-report, reveals challenges with personalorganization as well. They often have difficultykeeping track of materials and assignments,following directions, and completing work on

time. Unlike good studiers who employ a va-riety of study tactics in a flexible yet purpose-ful manner, low-achieving students use a re-stricted range of study skills; they cannot ex-

plain why good study strategies are importantfor learning; and they tend to utilize the same,often ineffective, study approach for all learn-ing tasks, irrespective of task content, struc-

ture, or difficulty (Decker, Spector, & Shaw,1992).

An assessment procedure developed byZimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) hasbeen used to evaluate self-regulatory processesrelated to effective studying. In this procedure,students are presented with common learningproblems and asked how they would respond(e.g., Most teachers give tests at the end of asemester to determine grades. Do you have anyparticular method to prepare for this type of test?). Students open-ended responses arecoded into self-regulatory study strategies, suchas goal-setting, time management, self-moni-toring (85-90% intercoder agreement). Re-search using both verbal and written forms of the procedure has documented significant dif-ferences in both the quality and quantity of study strategies reported by high versus lowachievers (Ley & Young, 1998; Purdie &Hattie, 1996; Purdie, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996;

Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988,1990). In one study, for example, high achiev-ers reported significantly greater use of 13 of 14 study strategies, indicating they used themmore than twice as often as low achievers(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). In ad-dition, self-reported use of strategies washighly correlated with standardized achieve-ment test performance (r = .61) and homeworkcompletion (r = .70), but was found to befactorially separate from verbal ability.

Although problems with study skills areevident among elementary school children,weak study skills are generally ascribed to ado-lescents and older students, largely becauseexpectations for independent textbook studyincrease substantially in middle and highschool (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996). Most of what is known about study skills among sec-ondary students is derived from self-reportmethods, such as interviews, student-com-

pleted checklists, or self-ratings. For example,a recent self-report measure, the MetacognitiveAwareness of Reading Strategies Inventory(MARSI), is designed to assess students


4/16

353

Study Skills

awareness and perceived use of strategies whilestudying school-related materials (Mokhtari &Reichard, 2002). On the MARSI, students ratehow frequently they use 30 different study

strategies (e.g., I take notes while reading tohelp me understand what Im reading; I askmyself questions I like to have answered in thetext). Measures similar to the MARSI, withdiverse middle and high school samples, re-veal a consistent pattern of limited study skillusage among students who struggle academi-cally. They experience significant difficultyacquiring new information, and report feelingoverwhelmed with the amount of material theyare expected to learn (Wood, Woloshyn, &Willoughby, 1995). When queried about howthey study, students report that they rely heavilyon passive strategies such as rote memoriza-tion. They tend to memorize details to the ex-clusion of main ideas, fail to establish goals orpriorities when studying, and typically equatethe purpose of studying with rememberingmaterial just long enough to take a test (Scheid,1993). When they engage in studying, they doso in long, infrequent sessions. A common test-

preparation strategy, for example, is to studyall material the night before an exam (Jones,Slate, Blake, & Holifield, 1992). Finally, stu-dents with weak study skills do not allocatesufficient time to study. When time is devotedto studying, it is often interrupted by friends,daydreaming, music, or poor concentration(Nicaise & Gettinger, 1995).

In sum, research has established that useof cognitive and self-regulatory study pro-cesses can be reliably measured through self-report, and that qualitative and quantitativedifferences exist between high and low achiev-ers. Students at all grade levels who possessgood study skills are likely to achieve academiccompetence. They understand task demands,and are able to implement flexible, effectivestrategies to succeed academically. In additionto knowing the steps of specific study tactics,good studiers understand why, how, and whento use them. Active learning is the essence of

effective studying. Good studiers are activelearners, not passive recipients of facts anddetails. Not surprisingly, successful studentshave been described as directors of their own

learning, able to determine what content isimportant and how to learn and retain infor-mation.

Interface With Other AcademicEnablers

Study skills are related to other academicenablers. Studying involves both cognitiveactivities, to facilitate acquisition and retentionof information, as well as self-managementactivities, to maintain attention, effort, and timedevoted to studying. Failure to engage in ef-fective study behaviors may be due to insuffi-cient motivation, low engagement, or lack of home support. For study skills to be effectivein promoting academic competence, studentsmust be willing and motivated to study. A Na-tional Assessment of Educational ProgressReport (National Center for Education Statis-tics, 1990) indicated that 71% of 12th gradersstudied no more than 60 minutes each day, and25% did not study at all. Thus, low motivationcontributes to weak studying. Motivationalbeliefs can also influence studying and, in turn,may be influenced by the results of effective

studying. The correlation between study strat-egy use and self-efficacy beliefs ranges from.40 to .46 (Zimmerman, 1998). Good studierssee themselves as able to control their academicperformance and, therefore, are motivated todevote effort and attention to studying. Lesssuccessful students, on the other hand, mayhold negative perceptions of their abilities andlack motivation to do well or implement strat-egies to make their studying more effective(Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994).

Engagement contributes to effectivestudying as well. Successful students arewilling to engage in study behavior and per-severe until they have adequately studiedassigned content. Good studiers are able toshield their studying from competing behav-iors or distractions, and maintain high lev-els of engagement (Gersten, 1998). Someresearchers have suggested that the benefitof study skills is linked to higher levels of

engagement that result from applying studystrategies, rather than the use of a specificstrategy per se (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, &LaVancher, 1994; Loxterman, Beck, &


5/16

354


McKeown, 1994; Pearson & Fielding, 1991;Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). That is, the ef-fects attributed to the application of study strat-egies may be due simply to the increased

amount of time students spend studying andthinking about material. In their review of Re-ciprocal Teaching (RT), for example,Rosenshine and Meister (1994) proposed thatthe positive effects of RT and similar ap-proaches may not be due to the strategies thatare learned and used by students, but rather tothe fact that strategies enabled and requiredthe students to engage in deeper processing of what they read (p. 510). In sum, although thedirection of the influence between engagementand study skills remains unclear, it is evidentthat study skills and engagement are highlyinterrelated, and that academic competence isintegrally linked to both enablers.

Finally, because studying is not an ex-plicit requirement in school settings, studentsmust acknowledge for themselves when study-ing is needed; they must also know where it isbest to carry out study activities and how muchtime studying will require. Environmental in-

fluences, especially guidance and support fromfamilies, can facilitate this decision making(Hoover, 1993). For some children, low en-gagement in studying results fromunderstimulating home environments (i.e.,environments in which study resources do notexist, and parental encouragement and supportfor studying are limited). There is also evidencethat parents goals and expectations for theirchildrens achievement are predictive of stu-dents academic goal setting ( r = .36)(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons,1992). In sum, motivation, engagement, andsupportive home environments are all factorsthat influence the relationship between studyskills and academic competence.

Evidence-Based Approaches to EnhanceStudy Skills

In light of research demonstrating theimportance of studying for success in school,

efforts have focused on teaching study skillsin experimental training studies. Over the last20 years, both laboratory- and classroom-basedresearch has provided evidence supporting the

effectiveness of study skills to promote aca-demic competence among students. Throughstudy-skills instruction, students becomemore efficient, thoughtful, and independent

learners (Scheid, 1993) and perform betterin school (Deshler & Schumaker, 1993).Even students who develop study skills ontheir own can learn to study more effectivelyand efficiently through explicit instruction(Wood et al., 1995). Overall, study-skillsinstruction has been shown to improve aca-demic performance, strategic knowledge,and affective responses among students withlearning problems across multiple academicdomains (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). Re-search indicates that students, indeed, re-quire explicit instruction in study skills; in-dividuals assigned randomly to control con-ditions tend not to acquire or use study strat-egies on their own without training (Schunk& Zimmerman, 1994, 1998).

A number of different theoretical per-spectives support the benefit of equipping stu-dents with study skills to enhance their learn-ing and academic competence. The most com-

prehensive approach to study skills stems froman information-processing model (Adams &Hamm, 1994; Gettinger & Nicaise, 1997;Harvey & Goudvis, 2000; Schunk, 2000). Inbrief, an information-processing model as-sumes that information to be learned is ma-nipulated by the student to enhance acquisi-tion and retention. The level of processing, ormanipulation, is affected by the type of studystrategy the learner uses. The more elaboratethe strategy, the deeper the level of process-ing. Within an information-processing frame-work, the development of study skills is con-ceptualized as strengthening cognitive pro-cesses across many information-processingsystems (Schunk, 2000). An information-pro-cessing perspective provides the theoreticalframework for two broad areas of investiga-tion related to study skills: (a) research evalu-ating the effects of four clusters of study skillson academic outcomes, and (b) research iden-

tifying critical components of effective study-skills instruction, irrespective of the specificskill taught. Key studies in both areas are re-viewed next.


6/16

355

Study Skills

Four Clusters of Study Skills

During the 1980s and 1990s, severalstudy-strategy investigations were carried out

in which researchers hypothesized that studentswho received strategy training would outper-form no-training control students on a numberof important outcomes, most notably, the leveland quality of learning information from textand performance on standardized achievementtests (Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Gersten, Fuchs,Williams, & Baker, 2001). Strategy-trainingresearch is predicated on the belief that stu-dents, low achieving as well as normallyachieving, can improve their performance onlearning tasks if they are taught how to engagein cognitive processing and study skills simi-lar to those used by successful students. Stud-ies have been aimed at either validating singlestudy strategies, such as prediction, contentmapping, and mental imagery, or evaluatingthe coordinated use of multiple study strate-gies, such as Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar& Brown, 1984).

Overall, there is research support for the

effectiveness of study strategies that enablestudents to learn and retain information fromboth teacher-guided instruction and self-guidedor independent study. Evidence-based studystrategies range from simple tactics for re-hearsal to more complex procedures designedto help with monitoring comprehension.Weinstein and Mayer (1985) offered a usefulframework for classifying study strategieswithin an information-processing framework.Specifically, study strategies are grouped on

the basis of the degree of manipulation or thelevel of processing of the information to belearned. Using this framework, four clustersof study skills are addressed: (a) repetition- orrehearsal-based strategies; (b) procedural ororganization-based strategies; (c) cognitive-based strategies; and (d) metacognitive-basedstrategies.

Repetition- or rehearsal-based studystrategies. The most basic study strategies in-

volve repetition, rereading, or rehearsal of in-formation. Rehearsal strategies are most use-ful when storing small bits of information forthe short term, or when the content being stud-

ied is used frequently. For example, repetitionstrategies are facilitative when students arerequired to study 15 words for a weekly spell-ing test, or learn multiplication facts that are

used daily in the classroom. Rehearsal strate-gies are easy to learn and use, and therefore,are among the first study skills taught to youngchildren. In the early grades, teachers may relyon repetition strategies for helping childrenacquire basic reading and math skills. For ex-ample, flash card sets are frequently used tohelp children learn spelling, vocabulary, sightwords, and math facts (Decker et al., 1992).

From an information-processing per-spective, repetition-based study strategies, al-though easy to learn and apply, afford mini-mal processing of content. As such, when usedin isolation, rehearsal is generally ineffectiveas a study strategy, especially as students movebeyond the elementary grades (Jones et al.,1992). There are ways, however, that repeti-tion-based study strategies can be enhanced topromote greater elaboration and deeper pro-cessing of information during rehearsal. Onestrategy for which there is an extensive evi-

dence base is the creation and use of mnemonicdevices, especially those involving mentalimagery (Gambrell & Bales, 1986; Levin &Levin, 1990; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1990,1992). Using random-group assignment com-bined with pre- and post-training assessment,research has shown that academic performanceis significantly better when students receivetraining in creating mental imagery devices,such as keywords, than when they learn asimple rehearsal technique (Bulgren, Hock,Schumaker, & Deshler, 1995; Bulgren,Schumaker, & Deshler, 1994; Ferro & Pressley,1991; Fulk, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 1992;Mastropieri & Fulk, 1990; Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1992). Specifically, studentstrained in the use of mnemonic strategies havebeen shown to outperform noninstructed con-trol students in terms of recall of informationas well as comprehension of text. In general,the evidence supports three conclusions con-

cerning mnemonic approaches: (a) Control stu-dents do not spontaneously use mental-imag-ery strategies on their own; (b) students can betaught to do so; and (c) implementation of


7/16

356


mnemonic strategies has positive effects onperformance (Levin, 1993).

Procedural or organization-basedstudy skills. Lack of organization is commonamong students with poor study skills (Gersten,1998). Although students may demonstrate anunderstanding of organizational skills, manylow-achieving students fail to use them con-sistently and effectively (Wong, 1994). Proce-dural study skills encompass the behaviors orhabits that allow students to maximize the ben-efits of their study time. Several competenciesunderlie the development of procedural studyskills, including time management, material

organization, and development of schedules orconsistent study routines (Gettinger & Nicaise,1997). A typical problem for students with or-ganizational deficits is the inability to struc-ture their study time and, when necessary, adapttheir schedules to provide sufficient time forstudying and work completion (Zimmerman,Greenberg, & Weinstein, 1994). Even studentsin elementary grades, however, can be helpedby teachers or parents to organize their studytime (Hoover, 1993). According toArchambeault (1992), organizational routinesand schedules for studying are most effectivewhen they are personalized by having studentsconstruct their own plans for monthly, weekly,and daily study. The professional literature of-fers several best-practice guidelines for con-verting study schedules into actual studying,including: (a) complete difficult work at timeswhen you are most alert and least distracted;(b) divide long assignments into shorter, man-

ageable units; (c) vary the type of study tasks(e.g., intersperse reading with writing activi-ties); and (d) be flexible in scheduling breaksand rescheduling study time if conflicts arise(Gettinger & Nicaise, 1997). Although researchhas failed to document significant benefits forany single study routine over another, whatdoes contribute to positive outcomes is theconsistency with which a study routine isimplemented and the extent to which it is per-sonalized or adapted for individual learners(Archambeault, 1992).

Cognitive-based study skills. The goalof cognitive-based study strategies is to guide

students to engage in appropriate thinkingabout information they are required to learn.According to information-processing theory,the greater knowledge students have about

content, the more likely they are to think about,understand, and remember it (Schunk, 2000).Thus, studying is enhanced when new mate-rial is meaningful to learners, and integratedwith their existing knowledge. In addition, in-formation that is stored as a network of con-nected facts and concepts, called schemata, ismore easily learned and retained. It follows thatgood studying requires students to (a) activateand assemble background knowledge prior tostudying a topic; (b) connect new ideas, infor-mation, or concepts to what they already know;and (c) develop new schemata, when neces-sary, to integrate content to be learned (Bos &Anders, 1990; Collins, 1991). Cognitive-basedstudy skills are designed to achieve these goals.

Cognitive organizers are effective toolsto assist students in activating prior knowledgeabout a topic, organizing information duringlearning, and using schemata to establish con-nections among key concepts (e.g., Baumann

& Bergeron, 1993; Scanlon, Duran, Reyes, &Gallego, 1991). Cognitive organizers, also re-ferred to as cognitive or semantic maps, arevisual representations of the interrelatednessof ideas. Cognitive maps allow students to ar-range the component ideas and details fromtext visually so that implicit relationshipsamong ideas and details are made explicit.Typically, a map contains a hierarchical dia-gram or arrangement of concepts, ideas, andfacts about a topic to be studied (often writtenon individual cards), which enables studentsto manipulate information cards and describethe relationship among or between content.

Despite substantial evidence supportingthe effectiveness of cognitive organizers acrossmultiple content domains (e.g., science, his-tory, literature) and for elementary- throughcollege-level students (Baumann & Bergeron,1993; Wood et al., 1995), widespread applica-tion in classrooms is limited for many reasons.

First, a substantial amount of instructional timeand practice are required before students be-come proficient at constructing maps indepen-dently (typically 6 weeks); insufficient instruc-


8/16

357

Study Skills

tional time in the use of concept maps mini-mizes gains from implementing this study strat-egy (Stensvold & Wilson, 1990). Second, ef-fective use of semantic mapping may be diffi-

cult unless it is part of a comprehensive andmultidimensional cognitive strategy approach.For example, Vidal-Abarca and Gilabert (1995)found that training in semantic mapping im-proved performance only when there had beenprevious training in summarization and ques-tion generation. Finally, research suggests thatsemantic maps may not be equally beneficialfor all students or for performance on all typesof academic tasks. Low-ability students, forexample, gain the most from map instruc-tion because they are less likely to sponta-neously activate prior knowledge and con-nect new concepts (Scanlon et al., 1991). Inaddition, map instruction leads to signifi-cantly higher performance on test questionsrequiring inferencing and application of content, but not on factual recall (Schmid &Telaro, 1990; Spires, Gallini, & Riggsbee,1992; Stensvold & Wilson, 1990).

Other evidence-based, cognitive study

strategies that assist students in activating andmaking connections with prior knowledge arequestion generation (Davey & McBride, 1986;Dreher & Gambrell, 1985; King, 1994;Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996) andsummarization (Gajria & Salvia, 1992; Malone& Mastropieri, 1992). Wittrocks research(1990) has shown that cognitive strategies,such as summarization and question genera-tion, are most effective when they are genera-tive in nature. For a summary to be genera-tive, the learners own words and experiencesare used to construct novel sentences that makeconnections among concepts and relate newinformation to prior knowledge. According toWittrock (1990), when learners use their ownwords to formulate questions or summarize,connections between new material and exist-ing knowledge are automatically constructedbecause those words are associated with in-formation already stored in the learners

memory. Generative summarization has beenused successfully as a study strategy for learn-ing material from both written text and oralpresentations (King, 1992).

Although teacher-led, cognitive-basedstrategy training has been the focus of mostexperimental studies, there is a growing inter-est in students interactions with other students.

For example, in Reciprocal Teaching, there hasbeen a gradual movement from teacher-leddiscussion to peer-led discussion (Palincsar &Klenk, 1992, 1994). Student-led discussionshave been the primary focus of work byRaphael and her colleagues (Goatley, Brock,& Raphael, 1995; McMahan, Raphael, &Goatley, 1995) and Almasi (1995; Almasi,McKeown, & Beck, 1996). These researchersfound that peers can successfully assume therole of teacher in modeling effective cognitive-

study strategies (such as summarization), andthat the amount and quality of verbalizationsabout study strategies are actually higher inpeer-led than teacher-led discussions (Almasi,1995). Peer-assisted learning approaches, in-cluding tutoring, mentoring, and cooperativelearning, have assumed a critical role in thedevelopment of study skills. The work of Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Simmons (1997)has demonstrated the effectiveness of Peer-

Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS). PALS isa classwide peer-tutoring program involvingpartner reading, summarization, prediction,and other study strategies that enhance aca-demic performance. Systematic evaluation of PALS has shown that, when compared to theperformance of students in control classrooms,students in PALS classrooms demonstrategreater progress on measures of achievement.Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (1998) alsofound positive effects for peer-mediated strat-

egy training on tests of social studies contentcovered during implementation, as well as stan-dardized tests of reading comprehension. Insum, peer models who demonstrate strategiesand verbalize their thought processes as theyperform tasks contribute to better studying.

Metacognitive-based study skills.The extent to which students apply study skillswhen the need arises depends largely on theirmetacognitive capabilities (i.e., their ability to

assess the need for studying, and to plan, imple-ment, monitor, and evaluate their study ap-proaches). Whereas cognitive-based studystrategies relate to how learners process infor-


9/16


10/16

359

Study Skills

From these and other approaches, amodel of effective strategy instruction hasevolved that incorporates a sequence of stan-dard instructional phases that proceed from

social modeling to gradually increasing levelsof self-directed functioning (Pressley, 1994;Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1989;Pressley, Woloshyn et al., 1995; Pressley et al.,1990). Such a model is consistent with a so-cial-cognitive perspective of self-regulationand academic competence (Schunk &Zimmerman, 1994), which posits that aca-demic competence develops initially from so-cial sources (teachers, peers) and eventuallyshifts to internal sources (self). Within a so-cial-cognitive perspective, four phases of de-velopment are theorized; these phases map di-rectly onto four standard elements of effectivestudy-strategy instruction (Zimmerman &Kitsantas, 1997), as described below.

According to a social-cognitive perspec-tive, during the first phase, called modeling, stu-dents acquire study strategies through socialmodeling, task structuring, and social praise. Amodel of effective strategy instruction, therefore,

begins with simplifying the strategy by break-ing it down into basic steps, followed by ex-plicit instruction and frequent modeling of strategy use by the teacher. Research under-scores the importance of showing students, not

just telling them, how to use a study strategy(Harris & Pressley, 1991). Strategy explana-tions include a rationale for using the strategy,including when it can be used and why it islikely to be effective. This type of strategy pre-sentation occurs through a process called cog-nitive modeling (Pogrow, 1992). In cognitivemodeling, the teacher demonstrates the use of a strategy while also thinking aloud to showthe reasoning that accompanies its use. Cog-nitive modeling allows students to observe thestrategy in action, as well as the thinking thatis involved in selecting and applying it(Scheid, 1993). Students who understand thepotential benefit of a study skill are morelikely to transfer the use of the strategy to

multiple situations. In fact, studies have docu-mented a marked increase in strategy use sim-ply by informing students about the utility of aparticular study approach (Meltzer, 1993).

For some learners, this observationallevel of training and development is sufficientfor them to apply the strategy on their own.Most students, however, require actual perfor-

mance of the strategy before it is fully incor-porated into their study routine. Similar tolearning academic content, practice is neces-sary to develop competence in the use of studyskills. Thus, the second stage of development,called the imitative level, occurs when thelearner applies the strategy in a way that ap-proximates the models performance. In termsof strategy training, this requires teachers toprovide multiple and varied opportunities forstudents to practice strategies and to receivefeedback and support in the form of scaffold-ing. Scaffolding involves providing help to stu-dents on an as-needed basis, such that the stu-dent continues to make progress in applying astrategy (Pressley et al., 1996). As part of thescaffolding process, teacher guidance is gradu-ally reduced over practice trials, and studentsassume increasing responsibility for strategyuse. This type of strategy practice occursthrough a process called cognitive coaching

(Pogrow, 1992). Cognitive coaching incorpo-rates collaborative practice within a scaffoldedcontext; it entails a shift in strategy executionfrom the teacher to students themselves. Inother words, during the process of cognitivecoaching, responsibility for effective use of astudy strategy is gradually released by theteacher and assumed by the students. Duringthis shift in responsibility, the teacher contin-ues to provide assistance in the form of scaf-folding (e.g., cues, prompts, guiding ques-tions). As students become more proficientwith the strategy, the teacher gradually with-draws supporting scaffolds until students areable to use the strategy on their own (Pressleyet al., 1996). The transition from teacher-guid-ance to self-regulation is necessary to enablestudents to apply strategies in appropriate situ-ations, on their own and without externalprompting (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994).

Whereas the source of learning and re-

inforcement for the first two phases of strat-egy acquisition is primarily social, the locusgradually shifts to the individual student in thelatter two phases. Specifically, in the third


11/16


12/16

361

Study Skills

ing. In this study, teachers exhibited relativelylow levels of implementation of strategy teach-ing (less than half of the targeted teaching be-haviors), raising questions about the extent to

which teachers are able to successfully mergecontent instruction with strategy training. Inanother study, however, detailed and explicitstrategy instruction was removed as part of theclassroom strategy-instruction routine in aneffort to minimize the time requirements(Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1997). In-stead, teachers only modeled appropriate studystrategies as they presented them within thecontext of classroom instruction. Bulgren et al.(1997) were interested in evaluating the ex-tent to which teachers could use strategy-basedinstruction (i.e., presenting mnemonic devices)as an ongoing part of the curriculum, andwhether students would be able to create theirown mnemonic strategies by observing teach-ers. In this instance, teachers had high levelsof implementation of the strategy training(more than 90% of targeted behaviors), and themajority of students, although not all, were ableto apply the strategy. Thus, for strategy instruc-

tion to be implemented with integrity in thecontext of classrooms, it is necessary to adaptthe training to teachers available time andteaching style. Future research should attemptto identify other instructional challenges thatmay restrict implementation (e.g., type of studystrategy, characteristics of learners).

Additional key principles derived fromresearch on improving study skills are impor-tant to keep in mind when designing study-skills training. First, students must recognizethe need for varied approaches to studying. Notall strategies are appropriate for all study tasks.For example, the most effective strategy forstudying spelling words is likely to be differ-ent from an effective approach for studying fora history test. Furthermore, any single studytactic will likely require some modification andpersonalization on the part of students them-selves. In developing an awareness of differ-ent strategies, students should be encouraged

to explain the appropriateness of a particularstudy strategy for different tasks.

Second, the key to effective study-strat-egy training is to help students guide their own

thinking, organizing, and study behaviors. Themost effective study-strategy instruction helpschildren to develop strategies that work forthem. Unlike the focus of commercially avail-

able study-skills curricula, students should beactively involved in developing their own, per-sonalized study strategies, instead of beingtaught a scripted set of steps. Including stu-dents in developing their own strategies en-hances maintenance and generalization to otherstudy situations.

Future research is needed to identify in-structional conditions that are most conduciveto the successful integration of study-strategyinstruction with classroom learning. For ex-ample, it is unclear whether strategies are morereadily learned if strategy training is embed-ded within content instruction (in which stu-dents witness first-hand the immediate appli-cation and benefit of strategies for learning andremembering content), or if learned in isola-tion. Research should also identify character-istics of students who do not benefit from strat-egy instruction in general education classes.For some students, it may be necessary to re-

ceive more intensive instruction provided in aresource room or other support setting. Finally,further research is needed to identify factorsthat contribute to maintenance and generali-zation of study skills to other similar tasks. Forexample, given the relationship between studyskills and other academic enablers, effectivestrategy training should include some meansof motivating students to engage in study strat-egy usage, to reinforce engagement in study-ing, and to increase parental encouragementand support of studying.

Conclusion

Study skills are fundamental to academiccompetence. Good study skills minimize fail-ure and enable students to take advantage of learning opportunities. To be effective learn-ers, students must (a) have a wide array of studystrategies at their disposal, and (b) know where,when, and how to use these strategies. Research

has documented that effective study skills canbe taught. The importance of study skills interms of academic competence underscores theneed for a strong emphasis on the development


13/16

362


and maintenance of effective study skills acrossthe curriculum and for all grade levels. Manystudents pass through our educational systemwithout having achieved a level of academic

competence necessary for success in and outof school. Although study skills are just onereason for educational failure, research onclassroom implementation of strategy instruc-tion and how to promote effective studyingamong all students should remain a high pri-ority.

References

Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teach-ing and learning: Promoting active learning in

tomorrows schools . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal

reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Be-havior, 16, 307-322.

Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graderssociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-leddiscussion of literature. Reading Research Quarterly,30, 314-351.

Almasi, J. F., McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1996). Thenature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 107-146.

Archambeault, B. (1992). Personalizing study skills insecondary students. Journal of Reading, 35, 468-472.

Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map in-struction using childrens literature: Effects on firstgraders comprehension of central narrative elements.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 407-437.Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in

identification and teaching of reading comprehensionstrategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.

Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactivevocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning andreading comprehension of junior-high learning disabledstudents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31-42.

Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for sum-marizing texts: The development of expertise. Jour-

nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.Brown, R., Pressley, M., VanMeter, P., & Schuder, T.(1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transac-tional strategies instruction with low-achieving sec-ond graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88,18-37.

Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D.D. (1995). The effects of instruction in a paired asso-ciates strategy on the information mastery performanceof students with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-abilities Research & Practice, 10, 22-37.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1994).The effects of a recall enhancement routine on the testperformance of secondary students with and withoutlearning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 9, 2-11.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J .B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997).Use of a recall enhancement routine and strategies in

inclusive secondary classes. Learning Disabilities Re-search & Practice, 12, 198-208.

Case, L. P., Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S.(1995). Self-regulated strategy development: A theo-retical and practical perspective. In T. E. Scruggs &

M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 9, pp. 21-46). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C.(1994). Eliciting self-explanations. Cognitive Science,18, 439-477.

Collins, C. (1991). Reading instruction that increases think-ing abilities. Journal of Reading, 34, 510-516.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. (1980). Infer-ence in text understanding. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in readingcomprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychol-ogy, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education

(pp. 385-407). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Damon, W. (1991). Problems in direction in socially sharedcognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cogni-tion (pp. 384-397). Washington, DC: American Psy-chological Association.

Davey, B., & McBride, M. (1986). Effects of question-generation on reading comprehension. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 22, 2-7.

Decker, K., Spector, S., & Shaw, S. (1992). Teaching studyskills to students with mild handicaps: The role of theclassroom teacher. The Clearing House, 65, 280-284.

Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Teach-

ing adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategiesand methods. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An instruc-

tional model for teaching students how to learn. In J.L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alterna-tive educational delivery systems: Enhancing instruc-tional options for students (pp. 391-411). Washington,DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mas-tery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. The El-ementary School Journal, 94, 153-167.

Devine, T. G. (1987). Teaching study skills: A guide forteachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dreher, M. J., & Gambrell, L. B. (1985). Teaching chil-dren to use a self-questioning strategy for studyingexpository text. Reading Improvement, 22, 2-7.

Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A po-tential model for teaching content area subjects to ado-lescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 26, 358-383.

Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B.,& Clark, F. L. (1991). An instructional model for teach-ing learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children,23, 1-24.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analy-sis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Ferro, S. C., & Pressley, M. G. (1991). Imagery genera-tion by learning disabled and average-achieving 11-to 13-year-olds. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 231-239.


14/16

363

Study Skills

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C.(1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making class-rooms more responsive to diversity. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 34, 174-206.

Fulk, B. J. M., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, R. E. (1992).

Mnemonic generalization training with learning dis-abled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 7, 2-10.

Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summariza-tion instruction on text comprehension of students withlearning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508-516.

Gambrell, L. B., & Bales, R. J. (1986). Mental imageryand the comprehension-monitoring performance of fourth- and fifth-grade poor readers. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 21, 454-464.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional re-search for students with learning disabilities: An over-view. Learning Disabilities Research & Pract ice,

13(3), 162-170.Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S.(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies tostudents with learning disabilities: A review of research.

Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.Gettinger, M., & Nicaise, M. (1997). Study skills. In G.

G. Bear, K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Childrensneeds II: Development, problems, and alternatives (pp.407-418). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Di-verse learners participating in regular education bookclubs. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 439-447.

Groteluschen, A. K., Borkowski, J. G., & Hales, C. (1990).Strategy instruction is often insufficient: Addressingthe interdependency of executive and attributional pro-cesses. In T. Scruggs & B. Wong (Eds.), Interventionresearch in learning disabilities (pp. 81-101). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitivestrategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction.

Exceptional Children, 57, 392-404.Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work:

Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding.York, ME: Stenhouse.

Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. F. (1996).Characteristics and strategies for teaching studentswith mild disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Ba-con.

Hoover, J. J. (1993). Helping parents develop a home-based study skills program. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 238-245.

Hoover, J. J., & Patton, P. R. (1995). Teaching studentswith learning problems to use study skills: A teachersguide . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., Blake, P. C., & Holifield, S. D.(1992). Two investigations of the academic skills of

junior and senior high school students. High School Journal, 76 (1), 24-29.

King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, sum-marizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learn-ing from lecture. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 29, 303-323.

King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in theclassroom: Effects of teaching children how to ques-

tion and how to explain. American Educational Re-search Journal, 31, 338-368.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Col-laborative strategic reading during social studies inheterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary

School Journal, 99, 3-22.Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading

comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and so-cial interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67,271-299.

Lenz, B. K., Ellis, E. S., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Teachinglearning strategies to adolescents and adults withlearning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Levin, M. E., & Levin, J. R. (1990). Scientific mnemon-ics: Methods for maximizing more than memory.

American Educational Research Journal, 27, 301-321.Levin, J. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and classroom

learning: A twenty-year report card. Elementary School

Journal, 94, 235-244.Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (1998). Self-regulation behav-iors in underprepared (developmental) and regularadmission college students. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 23, 42-64.

Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994).The effects of thinking aloud during reading on stu-dents comprehension of more or less coherent text.

Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (4), 353-368.Lucangeli, D., Coi, G., & Bosco, P. (1998). Metacognitive

awareness in good and poor math problem solvers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 219-244.

Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Spe-

cific and general transfer effects followingmetamemory training. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 10, 11-21.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading com-prehension instruction: Summarization and self-moni-toring training for students with learning disabilities.

Exceptional Children, 58, 270-279.Mastropieri, M. A., & Fulk, B. J. M. (1990). Enhancing

academic performance with mnemonic instruction. InT. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Interventionresearch in learning disabilities (pp. 103-121). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best prac-tices in promoting reading comprehension in studentswith learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Edu-cation, 18, 197-213.

McMahon, S. I., Raphael, T. E., & Goatley, V. J. (1995).Changing the context for classroom reading instruc-tion: The Book Club project for urban students. In J.Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol.V., pp. 123-166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Meltzer, L. S. (Ed.). (1993). Strategy assessment and in-struction for students with learning disabilities. Aus-tin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Mokhtari, S., & Reichard, C. (2002). Metacognitive aware-ness of Reading Strategies Inventory. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 34 (2), 29-34.

Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive andmetacognitive strategy instruction on mathematicalproblem solving of middle school students with learn-ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,230-248.


15/16

364


Montague, M. (1998). Research on metacognition in spe-cial education. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri(Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabili-ties (Vol. 12, pp. 151-184). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1990). National

Assessment of Educational Progress Report. Washing-ton, DC: Author.

National Information Center for Children and Youth withDisabilities. (1997). Learning strategies for studentswith learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.

Nicaise, M., & Gettinger, M. (1995). Fostering readingcomprehension in college students. Reading Psychol-ogy, 16, 283-337.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how tolearn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teach-ing of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1,

117-175.Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching andpracticing thinking skills to promote comprehensionin the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education, 9 (1), 53-59.

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacylearning in supportive context. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 25, 211-225, 229.Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1994). Third invited response:

Broader visions encompassing literacy, learners, andcontexts. Remedial and Special Education, 14(2), 19-25.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting

metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (6), 7-15.Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension in-

struction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, &P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research(Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.

Pogrow, S. (1992). A validated approach to thinking de-velopment for at-risk populations. In C. Collins & J.N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda forthe 21 st century (pp. 87-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M. (1994). Transactional instruction of readingcomprehension strategies. In J. Mangieri & C. C. Block(Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and stu-dents: Diverse perspectives (pp. 112-139). Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive read-ing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989).Good information processing: What it is and what edu-cation can do to promote it. International Journal of

Educational Research, 13, 857-867.Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P. B., & Afflerbach,

P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that studentsneed: Instruction fostering constructively responsivereading. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,10, 215-224.

Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1993). Special issue onstrategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94 (2).

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, L., Schuder, T.,Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992), Be-yond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of

reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Stein, S., Marks, M.B., & Brown, R. (1992). Good strategy instructionis motivating and interesting. In A. Reninger, S.

Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest inlearning and development (pp. 333-358). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R.,Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1996). The challengesof instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruc-tion that supports student thinking. Learning Disabili-ties Research & Practice, 11, 138-146.

Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., & Associates. (1995). Cogni-tive strategy instruction that really improves childrensacademic performance (2 nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:Brookline.

Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L. M., Martin, V.,

Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). Cognitive strat-egy instruction: The important issues and how to ad-dress them. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 1-58.

Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (1996). Cultural differences in theuse of strategies for self-regulated learning. American

Educational Research Journal, 33, 845-871.Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student con-

ceptions of learning and their use of self-regulatedlearning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 88, 87-100.

Rohwer, W. D. (1984). An invitation to an educationalpsychology of studying. Educational Psychologist, 9,1-14.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, J. (1994). Reciprocal teach-ing: A review of the research. Review of Education Research, 64, 479-530.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, J., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teach-ing students to generate questions: A review of the in-tervention studies. Review of Educational Research,66, 181-221.

Scanlon, D. J ., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1994).Collaborative dialogues between teachers and research-ers to create educational interventions: A case study.

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consulta-tion, 5, 69-76.

Scanlon, D. J., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1996).Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary in-clusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 11, 41-57.

Scanlon, D. J., Duran, G. Z., Reyes, E. I., & Gallego, M.A. (1991). Interactive semantic mapping: An interac-tive approach to enhancing LD students content areacomprehension. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 7, 142-146.

Scheid, K. (1993). Helping students become strategiclearners: Guidelines for teaching. Cambridge, MA:Brookline.

Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping asan instructional strategy for high school biology. Jour-nal of Educational Research, 84, 78-85.

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


16/16

Study Skills

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective

practice. New York: Guilford.Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). Mnemonic

instruction for students with learning disabilities: What

it is and what it does. Learning Disability Quarterly,13, 271-280.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Classroomapplications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition,maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children,13, 271-280.

Spires, H. A., Gallini, J., & Riggsbee, J. (1992). Effects of schema-based and text structure-based cues on expo-sition prose comprehension in fourth graders. Journalof Experimental Education, 60, 307-320.

Stensvold, M. S., & Wilson, J. T. (1990). The interactionof verbal ability with concept mapping in learning froma chemistry laboratory activity. Science Education, 74,

473-480.Strichart, S. S., Mangrum, C. T., & Iannuzzi, P. (1998).Teaching study skills to students with learning disabili-ties, attention deficit disorders, or special needs (2nd

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Vidal-Abarca, E., & Gilabert, R. (1995). Teaching strate-

gies to create visual representations of ideas in con-tent area text materials. European Journal of Psychol-ogy of Education, 10, 433-447.

Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2000). Preventing aca-demic failure. In K. M. Minke & G. C. Bear (Eds.),Preventing school problemPromoting school suc-cess: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 171-209).

Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psy-chologists.Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. F. (1985). The teaching of

learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-329). NewYork: Macmillan.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwon, A. F. (1997). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacogni tion in educa tiona ltheory and practice (pp. 234-256). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative process of compre-hension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Pursuing an elusive goal: Moldingstrategic teachers and learners. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 26, 354-357.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1994). Instructional parameters promot-ing transfer of learning strategies in students with LD.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 110-120.Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing

metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally

achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-240.

Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., & Willoughby, T. (Eds.).(1995). Cognitive strategy instruction for middle and high school. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Stein, S., Evans,P., & Brown, R. (1993). Reading behaviors of domainexperts processing professional articles that are impor-tant to them: The critical role of worth and credibilitymonitoring. Learning and Individual Differences, 5,49-72.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the de-velopment of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspec-

tive. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73-86.Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M.(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: Therole of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.

American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). De-

veloping self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Zimmerman, B. J., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein, C. E.(1994). Self-regulating academic study time: A strat-egy approach. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance:

Issues and educational applications (pp. 181-199).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmen-

tal phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process tooutcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,29-36.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Devel-opment of a structured interview for assessing studentuse of self-regulated learning strategies. American

Education Research Journal, 23, 614-628.Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct

validation of a strategy model of student self-regulatedlearning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Studentdifferences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade,sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

Maribeth Gettinger received her Ph.D. from Columbia University. She is currently Professorof Educational Psychology and Director of Research and Training at the Waisman CenterEarly Childhood Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her primary researchinterests are in the areas of early childhood education, evidence-based approaches for pro-moting academic competence among diverse learners, and positive behavior support.

Jill K. Seibert received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (School Psychology) fromthe University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2002, and is currently Assistant Professor in theSchool Psychology Program at the University of South Carolina. Her research areas in-clude teacher professional development, classroom management, and positive behaviorsupport for middle school students with behavioral challenges.

Instruct Contributions of Study Skills Gettinger 2002

Documents

Transcript of Instruct Contributions of Study Skills Gettinger 2002